[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by shizz

Why does there have to be purpose to the universe?

If atheism is true, not only does there not have to be purpose in the universe, there cannot be any.

So I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists who talk and/or live as if there were. Some atheists are honest enough to admit that life for them would be intolerable if they lived in a society that behaved as if there were no purpose and morality, so they adopt one that suits. They pretend there is purpose and right/wrong, good/evil that all should live by. But they know that it is all a pretence aimed at an acceptable lifestyle.

The rest of the atheists, however, live believing there is a purpose and morality that all should live by. This is in direct contradiction to their prime belief - that matter is all there is, be it hydrogen in the stars or the chemical processes in our brains. That is hypocrisy.

*********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[shizz]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

If atheism is true, not only does there not have to be purpose in the universe, there cannot be any.

So I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists who talk and/or live as if there were. Some atheists are honest enough to admit that life for them would be intolerable if they lived in a society that behaved as if there were no purpose and morality, so they adopt one that suits. They pretend there is purpose and right/wrong, good/evil that all should live by. But they know that it is all a pretence aimed at an acceptable lifestyle.

The rest of the atheists, however, live believing there is a purpose and morality that all should live by. This is in direct contradiction to their prime belief - that matter is all there is, be it hydrogen in the stars or the chemical processes in our brains. That is hypocrisy.

*********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Why can't morality be something that comes about through intelligence?

[tommy2bad]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

If atheism is true, not only does there not have to be purpose in the universe, there cannot be any.

So I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists who talk and/or live as if there were. Some atheists are honest enough to admit that life for them would be intolerable if they lived in a society that behaved as if there were no purpose and morality, so they adopt one that suits. They pretend there is purpose and right/wrong, good/evil that all should live by. But they know that it is all a pretence aimed at an acceptable lifestyle.

The rest of the atheists, however, live believing there is a purpose and morality that all should live by. This is in direct contradiction to their prime belief - that matter is all there is, be it hydrogen in the stars or the chemical processes in our brains. That is hypocrisy.

Most atheists don't ever think or care about the big questions, unless in a mood after drinking too much. They are quite happy to go to work, having a few beers with their palls (and/or spending time with their family), going on a nice holiday once or twice a year and not really troubling themselves about the metaphysical questions.
The thing is neither do most theists.
Not counting the 'spiritual but not religious' new age adherents, actual believing theists are a scarce commodity.
It's not hypocrisy, it's indifference and apathy.

[Gumbi]

I think most atheists' stance would be to hold disbelief against there being a purpose in the universe, unless it has been demonstrated that there is. This does not mean that there cannot be a purpose, just that it is not logical to believe so unless it has been demonstrated. Just like I don't believe in unicorns because such an animal has not been demonstrated to exist. Simple really.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by Gumbi

I think most atheists' stance would be to hold disbelief against there being a purpose in the universe, unless it has been demonstrated that there is. This does not mean that there cannot be a purpose, just that it is not logical to believe so unless it has been demonstrated. Just like I don't believe in unicorns because such an animal has not been demonstrated to exist. Simple really.

Can you imagine how a purpose might exist in a materialistic universe? I assume you can imagine that a one-horned horse-like beast might once have existed, given we do not have fossils of all life-forms, and given the many weird creatures we do know existed and that exist today. But purpose in a materialistic universe seems to me to be a beast beyond one's wildest imaginings.

********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by tommy2bad

Most atheists don't ever think or care about the big questions, unless in a mood after drinking too much. They are quite happy to go to work, having a few beers with their palls (and/or spending time with their family), going on a nice holiday once or twice a year and not really troubling themselves about the metaphysical questions.
The thing is neither do most theists.
Not counting the 'spiritual but not religious' new age adherents, actual believing theists are a scarce commodity.
It's not hypocrisy, it's indifference and apathy.

They are not living according to their 'profession of faith', so they are hypocrites. The cause of them being hypocrites may well be their indifference and apathy.

*********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[Gumbi]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Can you imagine how a purpose might exist in a materialistic universe? I assume you can imagine that a one-horned horse-like beast might once have existed, given we do not have fossils of all life-forms, and given the many weird creatures we do know existed and that exist today. But purpose in a materialistic universe seems to me to be a beast beyond one's wildest imaginings.

********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

I am, in fact, aware of many a one-horned creature that has existed. But I don't believe that magical unicorns of myth and legend have ever existed. I don't believe in flying teapots either.

[shizz]

Wolfsbane, I don't frequent this thread that often, but I think I speak for everyone when I say can you please get rid of that huge quote that you put in every post. At the very least put it in your sig if you like it that much. (I have sigs blocked) Not only is it horrendously wrong, it is an incredible eye sore.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by Gumbi

I am, in fact, aware of many a one-horned creature that has existed. But I don't believe that magical unicorns of myth and legend have ever existed. I don't believe in flying teapots either.

Yea, me too. I thought you might be referring to the possibility of a one-horned beast that had myths built around it.

But I'd like to hear your answer to my question: Can you imagine how a purpose might exist in a materialistic universe?


*********************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by shizz

Wolfsbane, I don't frequent this thread that often, but I think I speak for everyone when I say can you please get rid of that huge quote that you put in every post. At the very least put it in your sig if you like it that much. (I have sigs blocked) Not only is it horrendously wrong, it is an incredible eye sore.

No accounting for taste! But each to his own. It serves my purpose well and doesn't limit my use of other end quotes in other threads.

Sorry if it jars.

*************************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[shizz]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

No accounting for taste! But each to his own. It serves my purpose well and doesn't limit my use of other end quotes in other threads.

Sorry if it jars.

*************************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

I don't wish to side track the thread but what purpose is it serving? To annoy? Think of the amount of times you have posted it at this stage. If it had a purpose to serve, its done it by now.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by shizz

I don't wish to side track the thread but what purpose is it serving? To annoy? Think of the amount of times you have posted it at this stage. If it had a purpose to serve, its done it by now.

To inform. Sometimes that needs repetition. Especially if its something we don't want to hear.

But a new one should be coming up shortly.


*******************************************************************
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Zombrex said:Quote:

Sure, the truth is the truth no matter who believes it. But for most of us scientific fact is taken on the word of experts, not by our own research. And among the experts who do their own research there is disagreement as to what their research indicates.

Which (again) doesn't mean anything. You keep pointing to this "disagreement" as some sort of evidence for the validity of Creationism. The reality is that it is irrelevant if every scientist in the world has a different opinion or if they all completely agree. The opinion of the individual scientists is irrelevant, what matters is whether the scientific model does or doesn't accurately predict the observations. And you can verify that entirely on your own.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

That's fine - if you guys left it at that. We can all agree on what we see. So how come you assert, for example, that science has shown the earth to be billions of years old? Is that not based on an interpretation of evidence?

No it most certainly is not. It is a model that makes predictions that match observations. Or to put it another way, it goes If the Earth is 4.6 billion years old then we should observe X,Y,Z. We do observe this, thus supporting the model. At this stage there are hundreds of thousands of successful observations that support this model, far more than any other model.

The predictions of other models, such as say the Earth is only a few million years old, do not match as many observations and have thus been rejected. For example the model that the Earth is 6,000 years old has huge problems matching with observations. Creationists simply ignore this because well they know it is true it says so in the Bible doesn't it.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

No problem with that then.

Yet you still reject these models that match far better with observation than your Creationist ones.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

I was thinking of how the Creation and Evolution models both predict speciation, yet are contradictory models.

That is because saying they both predict speciation is very misleading.

The speciation that Evolution predicts is completely different to any notion of speciation that Creationism predicts.

For a start Darwinian evolution actually made a prediction, contained originally in Darwins work but expanded upon through the study of genetics, about how speciation should occur, over what time period, what mechanism etc. All these predictions were made before we eventually observed things like DNA. The predictions of evolution turned out to match observation, which added support to evolution.

Now, what does Creationism predict. How does Creationism speciation take place? No idea, Creationists don't know. What time period does it take? Well it has to have happened a lot since the Ark, but for some reason it has stopped. So Creationism basically predicts something should be happening and then when we find it isn't happening the prediction becomes it has also stopped. Which you will notice is the same as simply saying it wasn't happening in the first place.

The reality is that Creationism doesn't predict anything in relation to speciatation other than asserting it must have happened because we couldn't have fit all the current species on the Ark. If you can't see the difference between simply saying "Umm, this must have happened but we have no idea how" and an actual scientific prediction frankly I'm not surprised you are a Creationist.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

How then do you account for the widespread use of the Tree of Life by evolutionists?

I don't know what you are asking. The tree of life is not an interpretation. It is a some what inaccurate say of explaining the branching of evolutionary linage to lay people, like a physicist explaining an atom as a small ball (the electron) orbiting a larger ball (the atomic core).

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

The question is as to whether or not their theories are actually scientifically supported.

Again that isn't an issue. If you don't think they are scientifically support you can verify it for your self. Anyone can. Scientifically supported means do the predictions of the models match observation. You can verify this yourself. This is only a "question" because you can't be bothered to answer it. Personally no one would blame you, as you say life is too short to personally verify every scientific experiment. But you keep pointing to these "disagreements" as if they some how support Creationism. It doesn't.

Imagine there is a hole in the ground and in the hole is a stone of a particular color. Twenty people look in the whole and say the stone is red. Two people look in the hole and say the stone is blue. You are standing at the edge of the hole and go "Ummm, interesting, clearly there is disagreement here, but I trust the two people who claim the stone is blue, that better fits my religion and I find these people more honest than the ones who claim it is red"

I'm standing beside you shouting "Just look in the hole, you will see it is red". But you say no far too busy to look in the hole but then keep going back to the "disagreement" to justify continuing to believe the stone is blue.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

But if you are content to limit science to observed facts, there will be no disagreement between Creationists and Evolutionists. I doubt that will get science very far though.

Science is entirely limited to observed facts. Entirely limited to this. Utterly utterly utterly utterly limited to observed facts. That is what makes it so great because you can observe the same facts as anyone else. No one has access to some special information that only they can use or see or some interpretation that you have to be a member of a special group in order to get.

An idea in science that is yet to match up to any observed facts is an hypothesis and carries very little weight in science (eg the idea of multiple universes has yet to predict anything that matches observed facts).

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

OK, my apologies for using the common term for 'apparently confirmed'. I appreciate that the established 'truth' of one day can be overthrown by the discovery of further hard facts. So isn't it strange that when I suggest Evolution may be mistaken that I'm ridiculed for not believing science?

No you are ridiculed for rejecting well supported scientific models such as evolution while embracing utterly unsupported non-scientific concepts such as Creationism while complaining about the "problems" evolution has scientifically.

Even if you think evolution is not supported enough to be considered scientifically accurate you utterly expose the nonsense of your position by then embracing Creationism, which is like saying Google maps is not accurate enough for you and then deciding to use a picture of Ireland drawn by a 3 year old.

If the 40 thousand accurate predictions evolution makes (plucked that number out of the air) are not enough to say it is supported but the 7 Creationism makes are then that is nonsense. You might have some more credibility if you rejected evolution and also rejected Creationism.

The reality is that the science is irrelevant to you, you pick Creationism over evolution because it matches your religion. Complaining about the science is just blowing smoke.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

As above, Creation and Evolution both predict speciation.

No they don't, as explained above since "speciation" mean completely different things to each concept.

The speciation required by post-Ark species growth is not only not predicted by evolution but is specifically contradictory to evolution because the time periods in the evolution model are completely different.

I would love to see speciation model Creationists have for post-Ark speciation. As has been explained to you before a scientific prediction is more than just saying "Oh this must have happened some how".

Can Creationists present a model detailing the mechanism that the species changed, a mechanism that fits within the time period required (ie not just saying its the same as the evolutionary one, which requires thousands of years), and produce a list of where the predictions of this model match observations. I would be particular interested in the part of the model that explains why this rapid speciations is no longer happening.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Which (again) doesn't mean anything. You keep pointing to this "disagreement" as some sort of evidence for the validity of Creationism. The reality is that it is irrelevant if every scientist in the world has a different opinion or if they all completely agree. The opinion of the individual scientists is irrelevant, what matters is whether the scientific model does or doesn't accurately predict the observations. And you can verify that entirely on your own.



No it most certainly is not. It is a model that makes predictions that match observations. Or to put it another way, it goes If the Earth is 4.6 billion years old then we should observe X,Y,Z. We do observe this, thus supporting the model. At this stage there are hundreds of thousands of successful observations that support this model, far more than any other model.

The predictions of other models, such as say the Earth is only a few million years old, do not match as many observations and have thus been rejected. For example the model that the Earth is 6,000 years old has huge problems matching with observations. Creationists simply ignore this because well they know it is true it says so in the Bible doesn't it.


Yet you still reject these models that match far better with observation than your Creationist ones.



That is because saying they both predict speciation is very misleading.

The speciation that Evolution predicts is completely different to any notion of speciation that Creationism predicts.

For a start Darwinian evolution actually made a prediction, contained originally in Darwins work but expanded upon through the study of genetics, about how speciation should occur, over what time period, what mechanism etc. All these predictions were made before we eventually observed things like DNA. The predictions of evolution turned out to match observation, which added support to evolution.

Now, what does Creationism predict. How does Creationism speciation take place? No idea, Creationists don't know. What time period does it take? Well it has to have happened a lot since the Ark, but for some reason it has stopped. So Creationism basically predicts something should be happening and then when we find it isn't happening the prediction becomes it has also stopped. Which you will notice is the same as simply saying it wasn't happening in the first place.

The reality is that Creationism doesn't predict anything in relation to speciatation other than asserting it must have happened because we couldn't have fit all the current species on the Ark. If you can't see the difference between simply saying "Umm, this must have happened but we have no idea how" and an actual scientific prediction frankly I'm not surprised you are a Creationist.



I don't know what you are asking. The tree of life is not an interpretation. It is a some what inaccurate say of explaining the branching of evolutionary linage to lay people, like a physicist explaining an atom as a small ball (the electron) orbiting a larger ball (the atomic core).



Again that isn't an issue. If you don't think they are scientifically support you can verify it for your self. Anyone can. Scientifically supported means do the predictions of the models match observation. You can verify this yourself. This is only a "question" because you can't be bothered to answer it. Personally no one would blame you, as you say life is too short to personally verify every scientific experiment. But you keep pointing to these "disagreements" as if they some how support Creationism. It doesn't.

Imagine there is a hole in the ground and in the hole is a stone of a particular color. Twenty people look in the whole and say the stone is red. Two people look in the hole and say the stone is blue. You are standing at the edge of the hole and go "Ummm, interesting, clearly there is disagreement here, but I trust the two people who claim the stone is blue, that better fits my religion and I find these people more honest than the ones who claim it is red"

I'm standing beside you shouting "Just look in the hole, you will see it is red". But you say no far too busy to look in the hole but then keep going back to the "disagreement" to justify continuing to believe the stone is blue.



Science is entirely limited to observed facts. Entirely limited to this. Utterly utterly utterly utterly limited to observed facts. That is what makes it so great because you can observe the same facts as anyone else. No one has access to some special information that only they can use or see or some interpretation that you have to be a member of a special group in order to get.

An idea in science that is yet to match up to any observed facts is an hypothesis and carries very little weight in science (eg the idea of multiple universes has yet to predict anything that matches observed facts).


No you are ridiculed for rejecting well supported scientific models such as evolution while embracing utterly unsupported non-scientific concepts such as Creationism while complaining about the "problems" evolution has scientifically.

Even if you think evolution is not supported enough to be considered scientifically accurate you utterly expose the nonsense of your position by then embracing Creationism, which is like saying Google maps is not accurate enough for you and then deciding to use a picture of Ireland drawn by a 3 year old.

If the 40 thousand accurate predictions evolution makes (plucked that number out of the air) are not enough to say it is supported but the 7 Creationism makes are then that is nonsense. You might have some more credibility if you rejected evolution and also rejected Creationism.

The reality is that the science is irrelevant to you, you pick Creationism over evolution because it matches your religion. Complaining about the science is just blowing smoke.


No they don't, as explained above since "speciation" mean completely different things to each concept.

The speciation required by post-Ark species growth is not only not predicted by evolution but is specifically contradictory to evolution because the time periods in the evolution model are completely different.

I would love to see speciation model Creationists have for post-Ark speciation. As has been explained to you before a scientific prediction is more than just saying "Oh this must have happened some how".

Can Creationists present a model detailing the mechanism that the species changed, a mechanism that fits within the time period required (ie not just saying its the same as the evolutionary one, which requires thousands of years), and produce a list of where the predictions of this model match observations. I would be particular interested in the part of the model that explains why this rapid speciations is no longer happening.

Just a quickie for now:

The predictions of evolution turned out to match observation, which added support to evolution.

Please give me a few examples so I can be sure of what you are asserting. Thanks.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Just a quickie for now:

Please give me a few examples so I can be sure of what you are asserting. Thanks.

Sure, there are thousands of predictions that evolution makes, going right back to Darwin's original work.

A good example is Vit C. Evolution theory would state that humans descended from animals that naturally produced Vit C. but that humans ancestors at some point lost this ability. DNA studies have recently discovered the same Vit C gene in humans that is found in other mammals, but in our DNA it has been turned off.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today'.

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

While we are at it

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 118.

Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?
Stephen Jay Gould, The Skeptical Inquirer